With deadlines looming to declare a special election, city officials are weighing funding alternatives for the creation of a new city-wide park district.

For more than a year now, members of the Great Falls City Commission have engaged community members in an open conversation about how to address the city’s crumbling parks and recreation infrastructure.

A Park and Recreation master plan completed in October 2016 identified $12.6 million in critical deferred maintenance needs that must be addressed over the next five years if the city is to maintain services within its parks, swimming pools, trail system and urban forest at their present levels — money the city of Great Falls doesn’t have.

This past June, city commissioners voted unanimously to advance an initiative for the creation of Park Maintenance District 1, a city-wide special assessment district that would add $2.27 million annuallu to the city’s coffers to address the backlog of repairs.

If approved by the voters, Park Maintenance District 1 would add $34.66 annually to property tax bills on every $100,000 in taxable value of property within Great Falls city limits.

By state statute, the commissioners have just two weeks to schedule a public hearing on any resolution to establish a park district, if they intend to have the measure ready for a city-wide vote on May 8, 2018 — the same date as the next school election.

But at a work session on Tuesday night, city commissioners were still undecided as to what level of funding the city should propose, how it would be assessed and even if a park district proposal should be presented at all.

During an opening presentation by Steve Herrig, the city’s newly appointed director of Park and Recreation, Herrig laid out the possibility of assessing a flat fee for the support of Park District 1 as an alternative to a taxable value assessment.

As outlined by Herrig, such a fee would add $7,220 annually to the tax bills of Great Falls’ 29 large commercial properties, $722 for the city’s 1,843 standard commercial properties, $360 for the 415 small commercial properties and $29 annually added to the tax bills of Great Falls’ 19,854 residences.

While authorized under state law, flat fees are not commonly used to support special assessment districts in Montana.

“The reason we started thinking about this … (is) because it was simple,” explained Assistant City Attorney Joe Cik. “It would be easy to tell people that residents are going to be paying $29 next year for a park maintenance district.”

“The flat fee would also include nonprofits as well, so that squares it out a little more,” Herrig added.

Herrig’s analysis also included a schedule of reduced tax assessments based upon a lower $1.5 million funding level to support Park Maintenance District 1.

Newly elected city commissioner Owen Robinson voiced concerns over the flat fee proposal, noting that such a proposal could backfire if city voters view it as being inequitable.

“If you think of the people we’re trying to get to vote for it, they might be the ones who say, how come my house has a taxable value of $55,000 or $60,000, and I’m paying $29, but the guy down the street has got a $400,000 home, and he’s also paying $29?” Robinson queried.

Commissioner Bill Bronson questioned whether the time was right to place any type of property tax increase proposal before the city’s voters.

“I’m not personally persuaded to vote to place this on the ballot at this time,” Bronson said. “A year ago this community — in response to a very well-orchestrated and well put together presentation — decided that we were willing to tax ourselves to support our schools.”

Several of Great Falls's city owned tennis courts are in a state of severe decay(Photo: Great Falls Park and Recreation Department)

In November 2016, Great Falls voters approved two school district bond levies to address significant and widespread maintenance and building repair issues throughout both the high school and elementary school districts. Combined the two levies will generate $98.8 million for Great Falls’ schools over the next 20 years, adding $65.26 annually to property tax bills for every $100,000 in taxable value.

“Now they have received their property tax bills, and they see how much that’s costing them,” Bronson continued. “It’s not an anti-parks issue as much as it is the willingness to put out additional dollars right now for another public project. Unless there is a group out there that’s prepared to raise a substantial amount of money from private donors — and to go to the public and say these are the benefits of you supporting this — I question whether or not we should go forward with this.”

Commissioner Mary Moe, who like Robinson, was attending her first work session since her election last November, encouraged city staff members to research ways to “pare down” the price tag of a park maintenance district assessment request to make it more palatable to city voters.

Moe pointed out that doing nothing to repair and upgrade Great Falls’ parks would not be cost free -— that the city would face increasing liability issues regarding continued non-compliance with provisions of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

“When you have people with ADA concerns, you also have a liability as a government entity to provide decent access that is not embarrassing to people with certain disabilities,” Moe said.

Mayor Bob Kelly all but rejected the suggestion that commissioners hold back from submitting some kind of proposal to the voters.

“It’s time to make a decision,” Kelly told the assembly. “It’s time to spend money or cut.”

Repair and replacement of the public restrooms at Lions Park are one of the top priorities if voters approve a new Park Maintenance District(Photo: Great Falls Park and Recreation Department)

Kelly also pointed out that maintaining and improving Great Falls’ parks and recreation facilities would provide benefits for the city beyond leisure and exercise.

“Involved in this whole conversation — it’s more about making our community attractive for a work force,” he said. “Who doesn’t want to live in a community — ‘A’ — with great schools which warrant a good investment, and — ‘B’ — great parks. Those are the kind of questions that we need to have this community resolve for itself.”

Regardless of what funding levels, assessment methods and maintenance priorities the final Park Maintenance District resolution might include, the Great Falls City Commission needs to move fast. Just 11 days remain to schedule a public hearing on the matter. That hearing must take place and commissioners must vote to adopt a Park Maintenance District resolution by Feb 6, if the issue is to make it onto ballots for the May 8 election.

The Great Falls City Commission has scheduled a special work session to hammer out the details of what form a Park Maintenance District resolution will take. That session is open to the public, and will take place on Monday, Jan. 8, from 10 am to 12 noon in the Gibson Room of the Great Falls Civic Center.